It is proposed that the following areas should be the
subject of expert evidence:

1. The Plaintiff as a Holocaust denier;2. The Plaintiffs exculpation of Hitler;3. The existence of gas chambers and exterminations at
Auschwitz and other centres;4. The Plaintiff as a political extremist;5. The Holocaust as a plan to exterminate Europe's Jews.

Accordingly, we intend to call expert evidence to deal
with these issues.

We do not accept the areas you identify in your summons
as being appropriate for the subject of expert evidence.
Please explain, bearing in mind that at the recent Hearing
of our client's discovery application, you accepted the
issues identified in Mr Julius' First Affidavit as being the
relevant ones.

Please confirm that your experts will be in a position to
exchange reports by mid-March, so that we can inform the
Master that exchange of expert reports can take place then.
Presumably you are no longer seeking direction 12B of your
Summons.

We note from your Summons that you wish the matter to be
tried by Judge alone. Is this still your position?

Yours faithfully

MISCHON DE REYA

Copy Davenport Lyons (by fax)

1:\lipstadt\letters\let.di.
17.09.doc

Switchboard: +44
(0)171 440 7000Main Fax: +44 (0)171 404
5982

A list of partners is available
for inspection at the above addressThe firm is regulated by the Law Society in the
conduct of investment business.

[David
Irving writes to Deborah Lipstadt's lawyers]

September
15, 1998

Dear
Mr Libson

Deborah
Lipstadt

I enclose
herewith by way of service an affidavit
sworn in the above matter by Mrs B[&emdash;], wife
of Professor H [B&emdash;], of Portland,
Oregon.

2. I further
enclose copy of a page
from the records of the Portland Police, Oregon, about your
witness Mr Mozzochi, and remind you that you undertook to
provide us with a proper address for Mr Mozzochi to enable
us to pursue further inquiries.

It is proposed that the following areas should be the
subject of expert evidence:

The Plaintiff as a Holocaust denier;

The Plaintiffs exculpation of Hitler;

The existence of gas chambers and exterminations at
Auschwitz and other centres;

The Plaintiff as a political extremist;

The Holocaust as a plan to exterminate Europe's
Jews.

Accordingly, we intend to call expert evidence to deal
with these issues.

We do not accept the areas you identify in your summons
as being appropriate for the subject of expert evidence.
Please explain, bearing in mind that at the recent Hearing
of our client's discovery application, you accepted the
issues identified in Mr Julius' First Affidavit as being the
relevant ones.

Please confirm that your experts will be in a position to
exchange reports by mid-March, so that we can inform the
Master that exchange of expert reports can take place then.
Presumably you are no longer seeking direction 12B of your
Summons.

We note from your Summons that you wish the matter to be
tried by Judge alone. Js this still your position?

Yours faithfully

Mishcon de Reya

Copy Davenport Lyons (by fax)

[David
Irving writes to Deborah Lipstadt's lawyers]

September
18, 1998

Dear
Mr Libson

Deborah
Lipstadt

I attended
your offices today and inspected the documents produced in
your client's Supplemental List [ .
. . rest of paragraphs 1-4 is omitted as they concern
Discovery]

5. Since
nothing has emerged to support the plea of justification in
regard to several of the grave libels including those
respect of Farrakhan, the Hizbollah, and the
allegation that I damaged archival materials, it is now open
to me to apply for Judgement on admissions
[...].

Yours
sincerely,

David Irving

[David
Irving writes to Deborah Lipstadt's lawyers]

September
21, 1998

Dear
Mr Libson

Deborah
Lipstadt,

Responding to
your letter of September 17, I shall reply in detail to your
proposed areas for expert evidence, and your query about
direction 12B, in about a few days' time after discussing
this with my friends. I shall not however agree with 1, 2
and 4 as currently framed by you. I am uncertain as to the
relevance of 3 to the issues stated in this case, and 5
appears rather muddled in its phrasing, describing as it
does the Holocaust as a plan rather than an outcome. Perhaps
you meant "the Holocaust as the result of a plan to
exterminate Europe's Jews." You will appreciate the
difference in phrasing.

2. I did not
accept the issues identified in Mr Julius' First
Affidavit
as being "the" relevant ones, but as being, under certain
circumstances, of relevance.

3. May I take
it that your client intends to verify her Further and Better
List, which I have now inspected, by affidavit. Since she
has required me to verify my further lists by affidavit, I
am entitled to the same courtesy. I shall press this point,
if need be.

4. It is my
belief that the issues before the court, particularly in
matters of semantics and the German language, are
sufficiently complex to require the attention of a learned
judge, and too complex to confront a jury with. I further
believe that any attempt to prejudice a fair trial of this
case by the introduction of emotional or colourful evidence
about the Holocaust and other horrors of world war II would
be better withstood by a judge than by a jury.

Yours
sincerely,

David Irving

24 September 1998

Dear Sir

PROFESSOR LIPSTADT

Further to your letter of 15 September and our
undertaking to the Court, the address of the Coalition for
Human Dignity is PO Box 40344, Portland, Oregon 97240
USA.

We will be attending before Master Trench to have the
Order made on 11 September 1998 amended in the manner agreed
at the hearing
on 15 September.

Yours faithfully

Mishcon de Reya

24 September 1998

Dear Sir

PROFESSOR LIPSTADT

We refer to your letter of 18 September relating to
discovery. Points 1-4 will be dealt with separately. Point 5
you have raised before and have done nothing about. If you
are going to make such an application, please do so without
further delay.

Yours faithfully

Mishcon de Reya

[David
Irving writes to Deborah Lipstadt's lawyers]

September
24, 1998

Dear
Mr Libson

Deborah
Lipstadt, Queens Bench 1996-I-No.1113

Responding to
your two letters of September 24 received by fax this
afternoon:

1. You have
now supplied what you state is a Post Office box address of
the Coalition
for Human Dignity.
With respect, this does not repair the deficiency in the two
affidavits
of Jonathan Mozzochi, namely that the deponent must
identify his address. Under O. 41, r 4 a deponent is
required to state his place of residence, and he is only
allowed to state in the alternative "the address at which he
works" if he gives evidence in a professional or other
occupational capacity. Clearly Mr Mozzochi cannot "work at"
at a Post Office box.

Moreover,
since the deponent Mozzochi himself states in his
second
affidavit,
para. 2, that he has meanwhile left the Coalition for Human
Dignity he cannot give that as his address. Given the
importance of these two affidavits, and the scandalous
nature of the allegations therein, we made plain to
yourselves in the hearing
before Master Trench and in correspondence with yourselves
that we require the deponent's address in order to conduct
further inquiries. Please inform me of the time and date
when you will be attending before Master Trench to enable me
to object to the Order being amended, on the basis that you
have not complied with your undertaking to the Court, as
argued above. Should you not do so, I request that you
produce this letter to Master Trench.

2.
Second
letter.
I have delayed making our application until your client
completed her supplemental discovery to us. Now that we have
inspected those items and determined that there are still no
grounds that would substantiate her plea of justification,
we shall make our application, as stated and in good
time.

Yours
sincerely,

David
Irving

[Copied
to Master Trench, in Chambers, by fax.]

25 September 1998

Dear Sir

PROFESSOR LIPSTADT

We refer to your letter of 21 September. Adopting your
numbering:-

1. Experts: we hope that this will not be a mater for
dispute and that we can agree both your and our requirements
of expert evidence.

Our Proposals

Expert evidence must go to the issues in the case. The
issues in a libel action are taken from the pleaded
meanings and the Particulars of Justification. Taking
only what is essentially common ground in the Statement
of Claim, Defence and Reply, the issues that must be
addressed by experts are:-

(a) Are you a Holocaust denier?

(b) Do you hold extremist views and have connections
with extremist organisations?

(c) Do you distort, manipulate, misconstrue etc
history?

(d) Are you an Adolf Hitler partisan?

We say yes to all four questions. You demur.

Each issue begs questions in relation to which the
Court will need assistance from experts

(a) Holocaust Denier:

(i) What was the true nature of the
Holocaust? This requires an examination of the
Holocaust's constituent elements, principally (but not
exclusively):

the Holocaust as Nazi policy;

the existence of gas chambers and
exterminations at Auschwitz and other centres;

Hitler's responsibility/knowledge;

the number of Jews killed.

(ii) Based on this, are you a denier? i.e. do you
deliberately misstate the true nature of the
Holocaust?

These questions must be addressed by historians cf the
period.

(b) Extremist Views:

(i) Are the organisations with which
you associate extremist?

(ii) Are your published works, speeches etc
extremist?

These questions must be answered by a political
scientist who can provide the Court with a definition
of extremism and place your views and writings in
their proper context.

(c) Distortion of history:

(i) Do your published works demonstrate
examples of distortion, manipulation, misconstruction
etc of source material?

(ii) Is this more than legitimate historical
interpretation?

These are questions for an expert in
historiography.

(d) Hitler Partisan:

(i) Do your published works demonstrate an
effort to exculpate Hitler that is not consistent with
the historical evidence?

(ii) Do you distort, manipulate, misconstrue etc in
order to portray Hitler in a more favourable
light?

These are questions for an historian who is an
authority on Adolf Hitler's career.

Your proposalsWe take your proposals from the Summons for
Directions. They are:-

(a) Translation from the German language with
particular reference to the usage of 1933-1945;

(b) Preservation of photographic plates and their
authentication;

(c) Operations by and against Muslim fundamentalist
terrorist body known as the Hizbollah;

(d) Organised attempts by pressure groups in
Britain and internationally to suppress discussion on
controversial matters on recent history.

Without accepting that any of these areas (in
particular (c) and (d)) relate to the issues, we do think
there is some way of accommodating both our views.
Certainly, (a) (German language) and (c) (Hizbollah) can
be dealt with by experts from among the disciplines we
have identified above, namely historians of Germany and
political scientists. We have no objection to you calling
expert evidence in relation to (b) (the preservation of
photographic plates). As to (d), we simply do not
understand the category. What issue does it go to in the
pleadings? From which discipline would the expert be
called to give evidence?

We trust that you have found this analysis helpful and
that this correspondence may shorten the time required to
debate this matter in front of the Court.

2. The issues set out in Mr Julius's first affidavit are
taken from the pleadings. That is how relevance is defined.
Please confirm whether you will be seeking to produce expert
evidence in relation to the grounds set out in your Summons
for Directions and, if so, explain their relevance.

3. You are not verifying your further lists by affidavit
as a matter of courtesy, but under a Court Order. The
obligation arises out of a complete failure by you to comply
with the discovery rules. There is no question relating to
our client's discovery. She will not be verifying her
lists.

4. We agree with the option of Judge rather than Jury,
but for different reasons than you.

Yours faithfully

Mishcon de Reya

[David
Irving writes to Deborah Lipstadt's lawyers]

September
28, 1998

Dear
Mr Libson

Deborah
Lipstadt

I confirm
receipt of your fax letter of today's date
[panel
below].
I expect to clarify the matters mentioned in your recent
letter in discussions with my friends tomorrow, and I shall
reply substantively to you by fax and mail
on Wednesday
morning.

Yours
sincerely,

David
Irving

28 September 1998

Dear Sir

PROFESSOR LIPSTADT

We attended before Master Trench this afternoon and
enclose by way of service upon you a copy of the Summons
endorsed with his Order of today's date. It reads "Ordered
stay of para (2)(ii)(d) of Order dated 11 September 1998
until 2 October 1998 or further Order. Relist on 2 October
1998 for consideration of alteration of the said paragraph."
Master Trench had read your letter of
24 September.

Master Trench also invited the parties to try and agree
directions before the hearing on 2 October 1998 at which
time the Summons for Directions will be relisted. In this
respect, please could we have your comments on our previous
letters.

Yours faithfully

Mishcon de Reya

[David
Irving writes to Deborah Lipstadt's lawyers]

September
29, 1998

Dear
Mr Libson

Deborah
Lipstadt

I enclose by
way of service, which please acknowledge, copy of a Summons
[see
next panel] returnable
before Master Trench in Room 121 of the Royal Courts of
Justice at 3 p.m., October 2, 1998.

Yours
sincerely,David Irving

[Headings as
above]

Summons

LET all parties concerned attend Master Trench in
Chambers in Room 121, Central Office, Royal Courts of
Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL on Friday the second day of
October 1998 at three p.m. in the afternoon on the hearing
of an application by the Plaintiff for Orders that:

pursuant to R.S.C. 0.24, r.3 the Second named
Defendant Deborah Lipstadt do make, file and serve an
affidavit verifying her List of Documents served herein
the 17th day of February 1998 and also her Supplemental
List served herein the 9th day of September 1998. And
that

unless the Second named Defendant Deborah Lipstadt do
by 4:30 p.m. on Friday the 9th day of October 1998
furnish to the Plaintiff a copy of the docu-ment Numbered
500 in her List her Defence be struck out and the
Plaintiff be at liberty to enter Judgment against her for
damages to be assessed and for costs to be taxed. This
application is made pursuant to R.S.C. O.24, r.11A. And
that

the costs of this application be paid by the Second
Defendant in any event.

Dated the 29th day of September 1998.

[Website
NOTE: The significance of
Document 500 cannot be identified under the Rules
until it is read or referred to in open
court.]

[David
Irving writes to Deborah Lipstadt's lawyers]

London,
September 30, 1998

Dear
Mr Libson

Deborah
Lipstadt

This letter
replies to yours of September 17 and 25 in the above
matter.

In my view
only some of the issues between us require expert evidence.
The remaining issues involve no more than a detailed
analysis of my published works, raising questions of the
plain meaning of English words, in respect of which the
Court will need no expert evidence.

Following
your terminology and numbering:-

"(a)
Are you a Holocaust denier?"

It is my
opinion that the Nazis and their allies persecuted huge
numbers of Jews, possibly or even probably running into
millions, to death; this is my public, published, and
private position on the issue. It is, however, a matter for
legitimate debate between historians exactly how many Jews
were killed in Nazi occupied Europe, by what means, by whom
and upon whose orders. Since, and because of, the
publication of my book HITLER'S WAR in 1977 there has been
an international debate among historians and scholars about
the relative responsibility of Hitler, Himmler, and other
Nazi and collaborationist leaders for this crime. This issue
has still not been resolved some twenty years later.
Moreover the number of victims remains a contentious
issue.

What I have
said about this is a matter of record and the Court will
have to determine the plain meaning of the English words
that I have used. I do not see that the Court requires
expert evidence on the plain meaning of English
words.

This being
the case, it is for you to show, either that the above
paragraph does not truthfully and accurately summarise my
position, or else that the position as set out therein
amounts to "Holocaust denial" as understood by the Court on
the plain meaning of English words (which are not a matter
of expert evidence).

I accept that
to the extent that I have written or spoken about this issue
in foreign languages, expert evidence may be led as to the
true English meaning of the foreign words that I have used.
I am of course not responsible for variations in meaning
that may have arisen in translation by third parties. I
accept responsibility for writings and speeches that I have
made in foreign languages, so long as these are fairly
transcribed and translated into English.

I reject any
suggestion that expert evidence is relevant to this issue in
any other regard.

"(b)
Do you hold extremist views and have connections with
extremist organisations?"

I do not
propose to apologise for or justify my political opinions to
you, save that I deny that I have ever publicly or privately
expressed sympathy for the criminal ideologies of the NSDAP
and of Hitler. I do not consider that, on my pleaded case,
suggestions that I hold political views which differ from
the prevailing ideology of the political class are relevant
to this action. They cannot possibly justify your client's
libels. Suggestions that I do sympathise with Adolf Hitler
and/or the NSDAP must be justified as matters of fact and
the plain meaning of English words, and once again expert
evidence is irrelevant.

"(c)
Do you distort, manipulate, misconstrue, etc.,
history?"

I make no
claims to omniscience or infallibility. It is not sufficient
for you to show that I have made errors of fact; to justify,
you must show that I have knowingly and wilfully
manipulated, misconstrued, and falsified history. This
involves the proof of bad faith against me, which is
entirely a subjective question, on which expert evidence can
be of no assistance. Since 1977 new facts have come to light
which have changed everybody's perceptions of history, and
it is not sufficient for you to show that what I wrote in
the 1960s and early 1970s differs from what is now
known.

"(d)
Are you an Adolf Hitler partisan?"

No. See (b)
above.

You quote my
proposals as follows:

"(a)
Translation from the German language with particular
reference to the usage of 1933-1945;

(b)
Preservation of photographic plates and their
authentication;

(c)
Operations by and against Muslim fundamentalist terrorist
body known as the Hizbollah;

(d)
Organised attempts by pressure groups in Britain and
internationally to suppress discussion on controversial
matters on recent history."

In my view
the areas in which expert evidence will indisputably assist
are: (a), (b), and (c) as these raise technical questions;
(d), which you are inclined to dispute, clearly goes to
aggravation of damages, because a concerted conspiracy to
injure is plainly more serious than the actions of one
deluded individual.

Subject to
the Court's approval I agree with the option of Judge rather
than Jury.

David
Irving vs. Deborah Lipstadt. October 2, 1998. High
Court in London ordered the two defamatory Mozzochi
affidavits filed against David Irving taken off the file.
The writer's diary
record.

[David
Irving writes to Deborah Lipstadt's lawyers]

London,
Tuesday, October 13, 1998

COMPLYING
with the
Order, particularly the more detailed searches, is taking
longer than we had anticipated.

We have 55
boxes, each of two cubic feet capacity, to search for each
paper item; each box holds some three to four thousand pages
of paper; there is no short way. I have two staff members
working at it as well as myself, and we have worked
methodically at it without break ever since the Order was
made. The disruption to our normal routine, not to mention
my writing obligations, has been substantial.

We have
completed the tape list, the book list, the amendments to
the previous list, and are currently searching for the
remaining items of which you have requested discovery. The
affidavit is ready for me to execute, but at this rate it
will be the end of this week before we are through the
tunnel.

Even then it
is unlikely that the diaries will have been adequately
processed to surface the materials you have asked discovery
of: there are twenty to thirty thousand pages of diaries for
the past two decades, all of which have to be examined. I am
having the diaries mechanically scanned to make them
machine-readable, but it all takes time. I regret the delay,
and can only ask for patience.